^ V v-m^. 









\ ^ 






Sons c^-t-loe T^valiJ+lQh MnJ 

Cmci nnat"i' CohvetTtTdki .Oct 12, iS^jq 

H&leqo/'fes' Tfet^oi-i". 



^ 



■\ 



f 



■^it^' 




Glass J^^^^ 

Book • /t f a4g - 



DELEGATES' REPORTS 



TO THE 



Sons of the Revolution 



IN THE 



Commonwealth of Massachusetts* 



CINCINNATI CONVENTION, 

October 12, 1897. 



\%^1^a 



'..5i^ 



"he Society 



DELEGATES' REPORT. 



To THE Society of Sons of the Revolution in the Common- 
wealth OF Massachusetts : 

Gentlemen^- — As chairman of your delegation to the convention 
of our General Society in Cincinnati, October 12, 1897, held to con- 
sider the report of the Joint Committee of Conference on Basis of 
Union, with reference to the proposed consolidation of the Sons of 
the Revolution and the Sons of the American Revolution, it is incum- 
bent upon me to report to you the action of that convention, so far, 
at least, as it concerns an important decision to be made by you in 
the immediate future. 

The main result arrived at by this Cincinnati convention was 
adoption of a constitution for a third new Society, the " Society of 
the American Revolution,'' to " take effect when ratified by a majority 
of the State Societies of each National Society," and thereafter to 
be binding on the minority of these State Societies, whether ratified 
by them or not. This absolute authority of the new constitution 
over all the State Societies, if once ratified by a bare majority of 
them, was asserted in the strongest terms in the convention, and 
contradicted by no one who advocated that constitution. It was all 
in vain that Judge Harden, of Georgia, appealed to the great prece- 
dent of the United States, in the adoption of our national Constitu- 
tion : " The thirteen states called their convention, and they sent 
delegates to that convention for the purpose of establishing a consti- 
tution for the government of the thirteen States represented by their 
delegates. They met, and they promulgated a constitution, and said, 
this constitution shall take effect when ratified by nine of the thirteen, 
btd only so far as concerns those who ratify it. They recognized a 
principle that is as eternal as God himself, that no State has got the 
right to regulate another. The thirteen States could, by a majority 
vote, adopt a constitution which would aifect that majority, but they 
could not touch the others till they ratified it themselves." To this 
and other unanswerable arguments, by Mr. Charlton T. LcmIs, of 
New York, and Mr. Charles H. Jones, of Pennsylvania, the advocates 



of the proposed constitution made their reply in this astonishing 
claim of Rev. Dr. Rhodes, of Minnesota : " The gentleman from 
Georgia asks, could we undertake to transfer his society bodily into 
another society ? I say to him we can ; I say it is so nominated in 
the bond, that we can do so, and that constitution gives us the 
right. . . . We have, by the exercise of that power by this body 
here today, the right to say to the State Society of Pennsylvania or 
Georgia that in our wisdom we see fit to change this constitution and 
incorporate with the members of the Society of the American Revo- 
lution. They [those States] are bound by our action." 

It was all in vain that, as your representative, I tried to bring 
the action of the convention into harmony with the spirit of free 
institutions and respect for the just independence and equal rights of 
the State Societies. Believing that our venerated Constitutional Con- 
vention of 1787 had set us the highest possible example of wisdom, 
soberness, and reverence for equal rights under strikingly similar cir- 
cumstances, and that the spirit of Massachusetts required me to imi- 
tate that great example, I moved to amend Article IX, which 
provides that " This Constitution shall take effect when ratified by a 
majority of the State Societies of each National Society," by adding 
the words — '•'•but only for the State Societies so ratifying." This 
motion, grounded on the fundamental principle of all our free insti- 
tutions, namely, that all governments derive their just powers from 
the consent of the governed, was not even listened to by the conven- 
tion. This new constitution, therefore, which can have no just 
authority over you until you have freely adopted it for yourselves, 
comes to you with Dr. Rhodes's arrogant claim that, whether you 
vote to ratify it or not, you have got to be bound by it, just as soon 
as it shall be ratified by sixteen other State Societies out of the whole 
thirty-one ! Is it seemly that Sons of the Revolution in this proud 
old Commonwealth of Massachusetts should submit to a dictation 
which their ancestors spurned ? Or will they not conclude that 
union with the Sons of the American Revolution, however important 
and desirable on honorable terms, would be a mockery and a 
degradation on terms which conflict with their freedom, their honor, 
and their self-respect ? 

Further, not only does the new constitution come to us with a 
despotic claim which no State Society could admit without destruction 
of its dignity and proper independence, but it was forced through the 



convention in a manner which called forth this very impressive pro- 
test at the time from Mr. Caldwell, of Tennessee: "As a matter of 
sentiment, the Tennessee Society is perfectly willing to have the 
union, if we can have it upon a proper basis and under proper 
conditions for our Society. But we do not think that union is so 
important that our own Society should be disrupted in order to have 
union. That is our position, but in that we defer to those of you 
who are older societies. We come here and find that this Society is 
separated into two distinct parties, two different factions. We view 
with consternation the fact of jealousies which seem to be irreconcila- 
ble, and we see methods which are almost political. I don't say this 
as criticising anybody. I would not venture to criticise anyone. 
My attitude is one of apprehension, not of reprehension. I repeat, 
we view it with consternation and regret, and it seems to me, speak- 
ing from the point of view of a comparative outsider, for that is 
really our attitude up to the present time, that we are really con- 
fronted by this question : Not, shall we have unity by uniting the 
two Societies ? but, shall we continue to have two societies, one 
the Sons of the American Revolution and the other the Sons of the 
Revolution ? or, shall we have two societies, one made up of the 
Sons of the American Revolution and a part of the Sons of the 
Revolution, and another of the remnant of the Sons of the Revolu- 
tion } Now, as an outsider, I say that is the way the matter presents 
itself to me — not that I advocate any such thing. We are all 
perfectly willing to have the majority adopt any proper basis, but it 
seems to me we are confronted with the question whether or not we 
will divide our Society into two parts. We do not believe we ought 
to go that far. We do not believe that union ought to be had at 
such a cost. I say for myself, if I had discovered that there was a 
very serious dissension here, I would cast my vote against union. 
When I came, I discovered two irreconcilable factions, and I see the 
evidences of that spirit in this room and outside of this room, and I 
am bound to believe that my duty to this Society, to which I owe my 
allegiance, is to cast my vote against this effort for union." 

What Mr. Caldwell said is too true. The vote at Cincinnati to 
adopt this new constitution was in effect a vote, not to um'fe the Sons 
of the Revolution and the Sons of the American Revolution, but 
simply to disrtipt the Sons of the Revolution. That is the ugly con- 
sequence of the vote which now stares us in the face. The cause of 



national union has been recklessly wounded and killed in the house 
of its friends. The movement for national and State union so honor- 
ably initiated by the Massachusetts Society at Savannah, if it had 
been prosecuted in the same spirit of equity and scrupulous regard 
for our fundamental principles, could not but have ended in a com- 
plete and lasting success. If the Joint Committee of Conference 
had only reported at Cincinnati a 7vise a?id good constitution, framed 
in accordance with the principles advocated in the minority report, 
that wise and good constitution, being referred to the several State 
Societies for their free ratification, and ordered to go into effect on 
ratification by a majority of them, but for such societies alone as 
ratified it, would inevitably have won the adhesion of all of them 
sooner or later. Its respect for equity and sound principles would 
have proved in the end irresistible. It would have triumphed at last 
by its own inherent excellence, just as the Constitution of the United 
States was at last freely adopted by every one of the thirteen colonies. 
Nothing whatever has prevented this ultimate success of the move- 
ment for union, except the spirit of faction, partisanship, and unscru- 
pulous cunning on the level of ward politics — that very spirit whose 
exhibitions at Cincinnati, as Mr. Caldwell declared on the spot, struck 
the Tennessee delegates with "apprehension" and "consternation." 
That is the melancholy truth about this convention from v/hich we 
all hoped so much. What now is the actual outcome of it ? 

Not by any means union of the Sons of the Revolution and the 
Sons of the American Revolution, but, on the contrary, disruption 
and disunion of the Sons of the Revolution. The new constitution, 
recommended to us by a bare majority of one out of a total of thirty- 
one votes, is favored by perhaps twenty State Societies, representing 
about fifteen hundred members of the General Society. But it is 
repudiated by ten or more State Societies, representing about thirty- 
eight hundred members of the General Society. That is, by States, 
this new constitution is favored about two to one ; but, by member- 
ship, it is repudiated ■^owX.five to two. Mr. Montgomery, our General 
Secretary, has expressed his belief that the State Societies of Connec- 
ticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, 
South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and California, representing as 
they do an overwhelming majority of our membership, will decline to 
become members of the new " Society of the American Revolution," 
and elect to remain still " Sons of the Revolution." The other State 



Societies, representing only about two-sevenths of our membership, 
may secede and join the new society. The question before our own 
State Society is now, not whether we shall help to create one great 
national organization of all the lineal descendants of Revolutionary 
ancestors, — that, alas, is no longer a possibility at present, — but 
simply whether we shall stay with the larger division of our own 
national organization and remain still " Sons of the Revolution," or 
go with the smaller division of it, surrender our name and our charter 
together, and be absorbed in a new society which will leave us as far 
as ever from being what we had hoped to be — members of but one 
great national society. It is a melancholy choice to which we are 
reduced, but it is the only one now open to us. If we vote to adopt 
the new constitution, we surrender our chartered corporate existence 
and name, and become merged in the " Society of the American 
Revolution"; if we vote to reject it, we keep our charter and 
remain " Sons of the Revolution " ; but in neither case do we take 
one step towards union of the two national societies. Two they are, 
and two will they be, no matter how we vote. But, if we vote to join 
the new society, we shall vote to lower our present high standard of 
qualification for membership, and our present high standard of documen- 
tary proof of lineal descent frot7i Revolutionary ancestors. 

I. On its face, the new constitution is as strict as our own with 
regard to the conditions of eligibility. It requires that the Revolu- 
tionary services of the ancestor from whom eligibility is derived shall 
have been in some way recognized at the time officially, as performed 
under the military, naval, or civil authority of one of the thirteen 
Colonies or States or of the Continental Congress. That is, not 
only must the qualifying service have been overt and actual, but it 
must also have been in some way or other officially sanctioned a?id 
recognized, either by enrolment, commission, election, appointment, or 
some other form of public authority. It would manifestly be 
improper to admit, as qualifying service, the private acts of any 
individual as such, done on his own individual responsibility, how- 
ever applauded they might be by other private individuals ; for in 
no respect could they be regarded as legitimate warfare or " Revolu- 
tionary " at all. Hence the new constitution, like our own, requires 
in the first section of its article on membership that the qualifying 
service shall have been at the time recognized officially or by public 
authority. 



Indirectly, nevertheless, in the second section of the same 
article, the new constitution abolishes this indispensable requirement. 
It there provides that every member of both existing general societies 
shall be enrolled in the new society, " subject, however, to the 
approval of the Joint Committee on Revision of Rolls." This would 
have been perfectly consistent, if this Joint Committee had been 
instructed, as it ought to have been, to adopt and apply the single 
standard of eligibility just established for the new society in its own 
constitution, and thus hold all the members to one and the same 
just rule. But, on the contrary, they were instructed by the conven- 
tion to adopt and apply two different standards — to judge the 
eligibility of each member " under the National Constitution of the 
Society of which he is a member." Now both national societies 
equally admit descendants of Revolutionary officers, privates, sailors, 
marines, militia men, minute men, — in a word, of all who, in a 
military, naval, or civil capacity, rendered Revolutionary services 
under Colonial or Continental authority, and were thus officially 
recognized^ either by commission, enrolment, appointment, or election, 
Z.S public servants in the Revolutionary War. But the constitution of 
the National Society of Sons of the American Revolution, as it exists 
today, admits also the descendants of " a recognized patriot who 
performed actual service by overt acts of resistance to the authority 
of Great Britain," without requiring that such " recognized patriot " 
should have been officially recognized at the time as a public servant at 
all I That loose, vague, and highly objectionable clausfe throws the 
door wide open for the admission of members whose ancestors did 
not perform any " Revolutionary " services whatever, in the only 
proper sense of the word " Revolutionary " ; for the Revolution was 
civilized warfare, not a guerrilla contest, and these patriotic societies 
can command respect only on condition of limiting the qualifying 
service for membership to such service as was rendered in con- 
formity to the laws of war and the practice of legitimate hostilities. 
Suppose, for example, that, while Boston was in undisputed posses- 
sion of the British, a drunken Yankee sailor on shore had killed a 
British soldier in some tavern brawl or stabbed him in a back alley ; 
or suppose that the Yankee servant of a British officer had stolen his 
master's pistols ; or suppose that a Latin School boy had thrown a 
stone at a British sentinel and put out his eye. Such exploits as 
these would have been " overt acts of resistance to the authority of 

8 



Great Britain " — would have constituted " actual service " in weaken- 
ing the common enemy — and would unquestionably have made 
their performers " recognized patriots " in the eyes of their own 
companions. But would such recognition as that be enough ? Under 
this clause in the constitution of the Sons of the American Revolu- 
tion, taken just as it stands today, without any requirement of official 
recognition by Colonial or Continental authority, the " Revolutionary " 
services of such ancestors as these would be enough to qualify their 
descendants for membership in that society. How many or how 
few of its present members may have been admitted under that lax 
and improper clause, no one of us can tell. The clause itself was 
most properly stricken out of the new constitution by the Joint 
Committee of Conference, and this fact is a very emphatic condem- 
nation of it. But the Joint Committee on Revision of the Rolls, and 
the Registrars of all the State Societies no less, are now indirectly 
but authoritatively instructed, by Mr. Beale's resolutions, to admit all 
such members, whether few or many, as members of the new " Society 
of the American Revolution " ! This is in direct violation of the 
agreement of both Societies at Savannah and Richmond, which was 
to revise the rolls according to the rules of i8gj. Is not such action 
as this a self-evident lowering of the standard of qualification for 
membership, as compared with the standard of the Sons of the 
Revolution ? And is not this surreptitious admission of ill-qualified 
members by the back-door an undeniable instance of those " almost 
political methods" which struck the Tennessee delegates at Cincin- 
nati with " consternation " ? 

II. Further, if we now vote to join the new society, we shall 
not only vote to lower our present standard of eligibility, but we shall 
also vote to lower our present standard of documentary proof of lineal 
descent from Revolutionary ancestors. 

The Sons of the Revolution have always insisted, especially in 
their application papers, on dociunentary proof of the Revolutionary 
services from which eligibility is derived, and (so far as I know) have 
never granted membership in the absence of such documentary 
proof. Since by the name we bear, " Sons of the Revolution," we 
collectively and individually guarantee the true Revolutionary descent 
of each and every one of our members, we have not thought it honest 
towards each other or towards the outside world to give that guaran- 
tee except on proof which is open and evident to all — that is, on 



proof by original contemporaneous documents, not proof by mere 
oral tradition, however plausible or probable this may be. As a 
representative of Massachusetts in the committee of conference 
appointed by our own General Society to meet a similar committee 
from the other Society, I felt myself bound never to lose sight of that 
fundamental principle, and at last, though with difficulty, procured 
its recognition in the draft of the new constitution which was sub- 
mitted to the Joint Committee of Conference at its last session, 
Monday evening, October 1 1. In that draft it was provided that the 
qualifying service of Revolutionary ancestors shall be " proven by 
.official record or equivalent documentary evidence." This phraseo- 
logy had at last been unanimously agreed upon, not only by the five 
members of the committee representing the Sons of the Revolution, 
but also by the informal meeting of friends of union in that Society, 
held that same afternoon. But this phraseology was objected to, in 
the meeting of the Joint Committee, by representatives of the Sons of 
the American Revolution, on the ground that it was too stringent; 
and one gentleman of that Society cited, in support of the objection, 
the case of an applicant for membership whose original documents 
were said to have been destroyed by fire. The objection was sus- 
tained, and the word ^^dociunentary " ivas stricken out, by a vote of nine 
to one ; I voted in the negative, because, as I said in substance at 
the time, a universal and necessary rule of the new Society, grounded 
on its plain duty to the public, ought not to be annulled, merely to 
meet an individual instance of inability to comply with it. 

The new constitution, therefore, simply provides that qualifying 
service shall be " proven by official record or other equivalent 
evidence." This might naturally be construed as still meaning 
" documentary " evidence ; for, surely, nothing but documentary 
evidence can be, in truth, equivalent to official records. But the 
striking out of the word " documentary," avowedly on the ground 
that it was too strict, shows that the intention was to make tradition 
a full equivalent for unattainable documentary evidefice. Otherwise, 
what good did it do to strike out that word ? Who that does not 
wish to be deceived will believe that the word "equivalent" will be 
interpreted in the new society as still meaning " documentary," after 
the tvord " documentary " has been itself stricken out as too strict 1 In 
the courts, a law is always interpreted in the light of its history ; 
and who can doubt that the word " equivalent " ought to be so 



interpreted, as meaning in this case something short of '■'■documen- 
tary " / Yet to grant membership on anything short of documentary 
proof is to lower the standard of proof which has always been 
insisted on by the Sons of the Revolution ; and this lowering of the 
standard of proof is exactly what we shall vote for, if we vote to join 
the new " Society of the American Revolution." 

Gentlemen, you all know how earnest and persistent a worker I 
have been in the effort to accomplish what you all so much desire — 
union of these two unhappily divided societies in a single national 
body on honorable terms. But, through no fault of yours or of mine, 
this effort for the present has been defeated, to our very great regret. 
Only two courses are now open to us. One course is to adopt the 
new constitution and join the new " Society of the American Revolu- 
tion," thereby seceding from the " Sons of the Revolution," infringing 
the just freedom and autonomy of our sister State Societies, lowering 
our present high standard of qualification for membership, and no 
less lowering our present high standard of documentary proof of 
Revolutionary descent. The other course is to reject the new 
constitution and decline to join the new " Society of the American 
Revolution," thereby remaining loyal to the "Sons of the Revolu- 
tion," respecting the just freedom and autonomy of our sister State 
Societies and defending our own, retaining our charter, our name, 
and our fellowship with the vast majority of '• Sons of the Revolu- 
tion," and preserving unimpaired our high standards of eligibility 
and of proof. One of these two courses is necessary ; no middle 
course is possible. For the present, union of the two national 
societies is an absolute impossibility. Yet, without union of the two 
national societies as such, union of our two State Societies in Massa- 
chusetts will be nothing but secession from the Sons of the Revolution 
in the United States. That secession will not be in the least degree 
what we have all so earnestly desired, and what I, at least, have so 
long and so earnestly labored in your behalf to accomplish, union on 
a national scale, — that is, union in the nation as a whole and union 
in each separate State as a part of that whole. This only complete 
and satisfactory union being, then, for the present an impossibility, 
is it not well to wait patiently a while longer, to meet our present 
disappointment with dignity and fortitude, and to persevere in our 
efforts for that perfect union until, at last, wiser counsels and a more 
high-minded policy than those which prevailed at Cincinnati shall 



triumph over all obstacles ? Such, at least, appears to me the noblest 
and bravest course now. Surely, we can well afford to wait till a 
better spirit prevails. 

I therefore submit to you, gentlemen, for your thoughtful con- 
sideration and final action, the following resolutions: — 

Whereas, The plan of union between the Sons of the Revolution 
and the Sons of the American Revolution, submitted for ratification 
to the several State Societies of Sons of the Revolution by the con- 
vention of their General Society at Cincinnati, October 12, 1897, 
claims to be binding on all our State Societies whenever ratified by a 
bare majority of them, and thereby claims unlawful jurisdiction over 
the State Societies not so ratifying ; and 

Whereas, This proposed method of uniting the two general 
societies, if permitted to be carried out, would not only destroy the 
free self-government of our State Societies, but also lower our present 
high standards of qualification for membership and of documentary 
proof of Revolutionary descent ; and 

Whereas, This ill-advised plan of union, being approved by 
about two-sevenths and disapproved by about five-sevenths of the 
total membership of the Sons of the Revolution, is already a complete 
and hopeless failure : therefore, 

Resolved, That we, the Society of Sons of the Revolution in the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, while deploring this failure of an 
earnest movement for union which was initiated by our own Massa- 
chusetts Society at Savannah in 1896, and while still cherishing the 
most fraternal sentiments towards the Sons of the American Revolu- 
tion, and while still hoping for ultimate National and State union 
with them on some equitable and honorable basis, decline to adopt 
or to ratify the ill-constructed constitution of the " Society of the 
American Revolution," but adhere for the present to our existing 
State charter and to the existing General Society of Sons of the 
Revolution. 

Resolved, That this action be communicated to the officers of the 
General Society and to the several State Societies of the Sons of the 
Revolution. 

Respectfully submitted. 

FRANCIS ELLINGWOOD ABBOT. 

Camhridge, Mass. 

November 22, 1897. 



Cincinnati, October 13, 1897. 

To THE Sons of the Revolution in the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts : 

Gentlemen^ — The Convention of the General Society of Sons of 
the Revolution, called in the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, October 12, 
1897, to consider the plan for a basis of union with the Society of 
Sons of the American Revolution, and a proposed Constitution as 
reported by a majority of the Conference Committee, met on the 
date specified. The Massachusetts Society was represented by two 
delegates, Francis E. Abbot, a member of the Conference Committee, 
and Walter Gilman Page. 

The Constitution as originally reported by the Committee of 
Conference did not meet with the approval of your delegates : 

1. On account of the name as proposed. 

2. Because there was no revision of the rolls of membership 
called for. 

3. Because a referendum was omitted, and 

4. Because an immediate y'*?//// Convention was required. 

In fact, the lack of the last three items in the Constitution seemed 
so grave, in their important bearing upon the future of the Society, 
that Dr. Abbot felt constrained to submit a minority report to the 
Convention. 

This report, and the determined attitude of the opposition to the 
Constitution as proposed, brought about such amendments as practi- 
cally covered the ground of the objections raised; and the amended 
Constitution, which is submitted in print to the several State Societies 
for their approval or disapproval, was finally adopted by a majority 
vote of the Convention. 

I therefore recommend to the Board of Managers that, in accord- 
ance with the resolutions governing a revision of the rolls, our 
Registrar be authorized to secure expert assistance in revising the 
rolls of the membership of the Massachusetts Society of the " Sons 
of the American Revolution," in order that there may be no question 
as to the eligibility of the members of the proposed amalgamated 
society, so far as Massachusetts, at least, is concerned. 

A comparison of the Constitution of the new Society with that of 
the Constitution of either the Sons of the Revolution or the Sons of 
the American Revolution will show that the conditions of eligibility 

13 




regarding the proof of membership are very much more stringent, and 
the Constitution in a general way is made more simple, than either 
of those of the two societies party thereto. 

It seems to me that any questions which may be brought up now 
are such as will not affect the two rival societies in Massachusetts, 
and that here in this State we cannot afford to continue to fight out 
petty jealousies which may exist in other States and minute details 
which may be brought forward to prevent union. 

The vote of the States as to the adoption of the new Constitu- 
tion (leaving out the votes of the general officers) is as follows : 

Yes, 14. No, 4. Tie, 2. Declined to vote, 3. 

It would seem, therefore, that of the States represented at the meeting 
of the General Society, a very large majority were in favor of union 
under the plan of the present Constitution. 

Respectfully submitted, 

WALTER OILMAN PAGE. 



14 



•^■>fc- ^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 711 309 7 



'••I 




4^=^^'^. 



T -v 






V k/ 



^7^ 



/ V 




